Framing discussions of web privacy

That big Wall
Street Journal series on web privacy has kicked
off a lot of discussion, but it's a little weird
to see how people are framing it. Most of the
discussion makes the server side into the subject of
the sentence. "Example.com puts tracking software
on your computer!"

I suppose the fact that it looks like that is
a testimonial for the seamlessness of how it
all works. But when you actually turn on Firebug and watch
what's happening, the situation looks completely
different. It isn't "Example.com is collecting
information," but more like, "Web sites are asking
your browser to send your information to Example.com."

One of the things that makes the web better than
closed client/closed server is that ☞ the browser
doesn't have to do what the server tells it to. ☜
Likewise, if you own a router or NAT device between
your computer and a web site, your device is allowed
to drop or modify packets. It's your device and your
net connection.

I'm going to apply a lesson from Doc Searls here
and think about how we use language to talk about
a situation. If we frame the problem right, we have
better mental tools to talk about solutions.

So let's stop making the destination of the
information into the subject of the sentence. At the
Internet level, the companies that collect private
data are just a bunch of servers. Servers respond
to requests that clients send. Describing the
transaction by making the server side into the
subject is like saying, "that bookcase keeps giving
me Charles Stross books." Most users don't control
what the browser sends out, bit for bit, but users
do pick browsers based on features. (Remember how
quickly all the browsers added blocking for pop-ups
and pop-unders?)

Instead of "Example.com collects information" let's
make it "users send information." Connect the action
verb to the originator of the action, and people
can take the next step: if I'm doing that, why,
and how do I stop?